US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Notices

Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

And that would also differentiate you from the US Constitution, which includes the right to protest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amendment I to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It is not a right to just protest, but to peaceably protest. A protest which is not done peaceably is not a right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDB

And what would be an alternative against a corrupt government?

IS the government corrupt? I question the notion of "corrupt" government.

And already people are concocting conspiracy theories arguing that the organization fixed their numbers (extraordinarily unlikely), or the survey group was deliberately tainted (also unlikely, but this will have some traction), or even that democrats surveyed lied about getting jobs (possible, but not in such large numbers).

Honestly, the numbers report is probably boosted by seasonal job shifts and other simple factors that are employing more people currently but not for long lasting work.

IS the government corrupt? I question the notion of "corrupt" government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by james0246

I doubt the Government is corrupt (politicians can be corrupt, but I doubt many think the actual Government is corrupt), but it is ridiculously inefficient.

The Government is not autonomous. It is as its politicians are, as they make the rules for the government. If they are corrupt, then the Government itself is corrupt.

And yes, it's definitely corrupt. Money = Speech and Corporations are People should tell you that immediately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

It is not a right to just protest, but to peaceably protest. A protest which is not done peaceably is not a right.

And what is a "peaceable" protest? Who defines what is "peaceable"? The Tea Party protests were worse, yet nothing happened to them since they happened to coincide with what the 1% wanted. That was not the case with OWS, so they got beaten.

And yes, it's definitely corrupt. Money = Speech and Corporations are People should tell you that immediately.

I disagree with that assessment. "Speech" takes money to be conveyed, so automatically saying that using money to spread speech in itself is not corruption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GDB

And what is a "peaceable" protest? Who defines what is "peaceable"? The Tea Party protests were worse, yet nothing happened to them since they happened to coincide with what the 1% wanted. That was not the case with OWS, so they got beaten.

Have the Tea Party protests been overstaying their mandate (in camps, no less) or continuously hindering the activities of those unrelated to the protests?

I would describe OWS as a "peaceable" protest. Obstruction is not violent. It's simply civil disobedience.

Personally, I think they should have gone further and "occupied" the stock exchange. Or did a in person Denial of Service attack. Flood it with so many people that nothing can get done.

The only reason people paid attention to OWS was because they made such a nuisance of themselves. The Wall street bankers had their cocoon pierced, if only for a short time. Unfortunately, they still live in an alternate reality where they're Randian heroes driving the motor of the world.

Symbolism - Struggle between Man & God (yes, I'm taking this WAY out of context, but it's a beautiful painting )

Alexander Louis Leloir

Quote:

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I would describe OWS as a "peaceable" protest. Obstruction is not violent. It's simply civil disobedience.

Personally, I think they should have gone further and "occupied" the stock exchange. Or did a in person Denial of Service attack. Flood it with so many people that nothing can get done.

The only reason people paid attention to OWS was because they made such a nuisance of themselves. The Wall street bankers had their cocoon pierced, if only for a short time. Unfortunately, they still live in an alternate reality where they're Randian heroes driving the motor of the world.

As someone that works in that "alternate reality" I'd say you couldn't comprehend the damage you would do to the entire system .. Then again.. maybe not.. you do know that we all have alternate work sites and work locations right? When the G20 came to Toronto and the riots happened.. we were operating at alternate locations

I have a million dollars and misinformation to spread that secretly benefits me and no one else. You have one dollar and the truth. Which message is going to win?

The data says truth almost always loses. It isn't a level playing field of ideas.

The people, at any time, can elect anyone and everyone out of office, and then every questionable law can be repealed or reformed. Will this ever happen? Probably not (money is the great equalizer when it comes to the truth). But, as so long as it is possible, then the Government (which is of the people and by the people) is not corrupt, simply run by corrupt individuals.

, and then every questionable law can be repealed or reformed. Will this ever happen? Probably not (money is the great equalizer when it comes to the truth).

I'm not sure how you defend that money is the great *equalizer* when it comes to truth, but maybe I misunderstood the sentence. Did you mean that money allows falsehoods to stand against truth?

Quote:

But, as so long as it is possible, then the Government (which is of the people and by the people) is not corrupt, simply run by corrupt individuals.

I don't support the notion that the US government is inherently corrupt as designed. I do think that corrupt people always find ways to taint the process and the citizens need the tools to spotlight and out them. Traditionally, that's been an independent news press - but with the advent of the same corporation owning the news that makes the weapons that provides the entertainment that pours billions into lobbying and campaigns and essentially "owns" the governing process ... not looking good for the long term.

In other news,
PBS decided an official statement skewering Romney's lack of command of the facts on public broadcasting was necessary. You'd have to have millions of "PBS budget line item" removals to begin to make a dent in the Bush tax cuts. Public broadcasting is the information equivalent of the Rural Electrification Act that brought electricity to all those rural areas because the private sector simply wasn't going to do it.

My point is that "unreason" might in fact be reason, but under an atheist point of view the potential reason would be rendered "unreason". Basically, I'm rejecting the view that belief in the existence of deities (to simplify the definition) is automatically "unreason".

If it was difficult to get it, I put "" around "unreason" to show my disagreement with the assessment of "unreason".

You're right. Belief in deities is not unreasonable, it's merely an outmoded way of thinking that has been replaced by a superior one.

Do i think religion is useless and stupid? Of course not. Before science became the dominant mode of reasoning and inquiry, Religion served that function. Someday, science, too, will be replaced by a superior mode of inquiry, one that relies on as of yet to be discovered technologies and mathematical concepts.

At this point though, religion has no use as a mode of inquiry or as a guide for how to live your life.

The fact that there are actually laws that are entirely based on religion is both frustrating and infuriating to those of us who have moved on.

Religion is already on the short path to extinction. It's sad that we are still debating about this in 2012.

Well... I think there's always going to be a place for *spirituality* because its an acknowledgement of the irrational in being human. I'll readily admit to having experienced "perfect moments" (even if I know there is a biochemical/neurological foundation for them) and one should enjoy those - and I rather enjoy visiting shrines or temples that help to focus those moments.

Institutional religion with founders (and leaders) who wave a book of "rules" of questionable origin that detail what sort of fabric you wear, who to stone, who to hate? Sects with extreme and unsupportable interpretations of those rules? Insecure violent buffoons who lash out when that is pointed out? Yeah, not destined for the dustbin but needs to be driven there.

You're right. Belief in deities is not unreasonable, it's merely an outmoded way of thinking that has been replaced by a superior one.

Can I just say that is one of the largest piece of BS I've ever heard in any format? There is no superior or inferior way of thinking, given the limitations of humans. The fact that people think science is the answer is the same kind of idolatry that anti-religion people accuse the religious of, and in fact I believe them to be no different from the extreme religions that they speak down of.